On 12/30/2014 09:00 AM, Louis Suárez-Potts wrote:
On 30 Dec 2014, at 03:56, Bertrand Delacretaz<bdelacre...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 9:32 PM, Andrew Purtell
><andrew.purt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>...Certainly some projects have a de facto lead that coincide with Chair and
I'm pretty sure
>>in some cases that is an honorary arrangement agreed to by the community....
>
>*loud red alarms going off all over my brain*
>
>If that's the case, such projects should make sure they implement a
>regular PMC chair rotation. Or be prepared to go down in flames once
>that leader changes their mind and no one has a clue how their project
>runs.
Indeed. But outside of self-policing, is there a mechanism to ensure that
something like this, disfavouring egoistic power, is in place? Note, I’m not
sure it’s actually needed, just curious.
There certainly is such a mechanism. It's called "quarterly reports to
the board." Which is why it's so important that reviewing board reports
is more than just a checkbox, as has been accused in the past.
Fortunately, I've seen pretty strong evidence in the last few years that
it's *way* more than just a checkbox, with board members routinely
citing older reports, going back months and years, to support their
comments about projects that are drifting from the course.
--
Rich Bowen - rbo...@rcbowen.com - @rbowen
http://apachecon.com/ - @apachecon
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
